The SAAF Forum

You're off the topic here, we are talking about a hypothetical Coast Guard, which is a 'police' organisation, not military.

Quite. Let's not turn the two cops in the bakkie into an infantry fighting vehicle.

Ok now what about the SAPS waterwing, how do they support the environmental vessels?

You need as good a speed as the average trawler. Look at a lot of OPVs - they are hovering around the 22 knot mark as top speed. Same with a lot of corvettes. Your hull starts really chewing up the horses around this speed to get every extra knot. So you do what the Aussies did, send for the SAN - in cases like this the navy can help. But it would be the exception rather than the rule.

As to guns - you are welding a mount to the deck to support a 20mm or 25 mm. No problems.

Nor really. A coast guard ship will need a medical team. And SAMH's covers that. Remember they may do SAR get in to fights or just have a accident. So all though all crew will have some medical training (MFA1 at least) but the dedicated medic will be a SAMH's ops medic. And coast guard will be a separate branch. So why not a new DoD department.

The way I read this topic is that the point of a separate CG is to avoid the 'over the top' expenses and red tape of military systems, practices and overheads.
The people in the SAPS, NSRI, or DEAT who have paramedic qualifications are not from the SAMHS. Just forget about the military and their ways. Do you really understand what the whole point of a CG actually is? The Navy's bid to operate the existing Fisheries fleet was rejected precisely because it was way too expensiveand complicated. The DoD should be kept well away from any potential CG unless the country gets involved in a Naval war.

Really interesting info in the other thread (about Chief of the Navy's speech) to the effect that the four frigates are budgeted 200 sea days between them per year. That means that, normally speaking, each frigate is only supposed to be at sea for 50 days a year.

I see these things from the perspective of the junior officers (ensigns and sub-lieutenants) working for their bridge watchkeeping certificates. If you're a JO on one of the frigates, you're not getting a lot of navigation practice with 50 days a year. (But, for what it's worth, it wasn't any better in the early 90's when I was in - we also spent much more time alongside than at sea and many sea 'days' were prepare to leave harbour at 10am and secure back alongside by 4pm in any case.)

This was the main reason that I thought that the SAN should welcome the DEAT vessels with open arms, because they HAVE to go to sea. Great opportunity for training up your JO's - up and down the coast, anchoring, looking into little bays, make them do blind pilotage every time they enter and leave port, etc. And at the same time doing something useful in looking after the last remaining kreef.

Don't worry, I realise the threat is that, in the end, only the DEAT vessels get to go to sea and the other ships end up spending even more time alongside... This is exactly the reason why the navy needs to get the organisational arrangement with the DEAT right. It is also why I advocate some 'half-navy, half-not-navy' solution where the vessels aren't quite integrated in the fleet, but we still get to reap the benefit of the increased sea time for our junior people. Maybe just service them in the dockyard and staff them with a mix of civvies and junior SAN people?

It can't just be like the SAAF's VIP flight (fully part of the SAAF). Because what's started to happen is that the government now treats the SAAF as their personal airline which is not its core role and that means there's no money left for the SAAF to do its real job! Don't want this to happen to the SAN in any way.

Speed and range important, however sea conditions will always dictate what speed a ship can achieve.

I think the main weapon should be the remote 25mm and perhaps 2 x 12.7mm guns. That requires minimal crew. Sea keeping also important and boy do small ships roll in wild seas!

At last we may see some effective anti-piracy operations. Historically the only effective way of dealing with pirates:

I have no idea where this came from - I found it in my cache today. I cannot recall seeing it on any website I visited, But it may be of some interest.

Would the vessels need helicopter capability? By this I mean a hangar not just a landing pad.

One or two of the longer ranged ones only - but you can put a chopper on a fairly small vessel. What would be essential - and once again probably better divorced from the SAAF - is a long range maritime surveillance wing. Many years ago Sea Fisheries had a few Partenevia P68s for this - I don't know if they were owned or leased though. But something like that with a decent radar in the nose. The old P166 Albatross would be ideal too!

There are a few companies offering radar and/or optronics systems mounted in a belly pod under planes such as Beech King Air. AIUI such a system is on the SAAF's wishlist for their Inshore MR (Albatross replacement) programme.

What about UAV's. For both shore and ship based operations. They could be used like the old seaplanes that where used in WW2 period ships. Launched from a ramp recovered with a crane. It could be a joint project with the Navy, Air force and the coast guard unit has all departments would have a use for it.

VTOL "helicopter" UAVs are becoming quite popular as patrol boat/ship equipment. No need for catapults etc.